CD 3401 
.04 
Copy 1 



CONDITION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS 
IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 



Report of the Chief of the Division of Public Records 
to the Commissioner of Education 



STATE OF NEW YORK 

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 

1912 



MAY 14 W 










Hon. Andrew S. Draper LL.D., 

Commissioner of Education 
Dear sir : 

All the political divisions in this State (59 counties exclusive of New 
York and Kings, 48 cities exclusive of New York City, 933 towns, and 
464 villages) have reported to this division as to the care and custody 
of public records — all excepting eight villages. 

All the counties have reported. All the cities have reported. All the 
towns have reported; and all the villages have reported excepting the 
villages of Bridgewater, Oneida co. ; Cenfei;ville Station, Sullivan co. ; 
Clayton, Jefferson co. ; Fultonville, Montgomery co. ; Galway and Water- 
ford, Saratoga co. ; Great Neck Estates, Nassau co. ; and Nelsonville, 
Putnam co. Two of these eight delinquent villages were incorporated 
only last year (Centerville Station and Great Neck Estates) and conse- 
quently their records of the past are unimportant, if not nil. We have 
interested the county clerk in each of the counties in measures that should 
compel answers in the near future from the eight villages not yet heard 
from. 

The reports are from responsible officials and are now on file in this 
division. 

For the counties, we have statements from the county clerks, the 
clerks of supervisors and the surrogates. 

For the cities, we have the statements of the city clerks. For the 
towns, the statements of the town clerks, and for the villages, the state- 
ments of the village clerks. 

This work has been carried on in obedience to chapter 380, Laws 
of 191 1, which expressly excludes the counties of New York and Kings 
from the jurisdiction of this division. 



COUNTIES 



County clerks 



The county clerks of five counties report that the buildings in which 
their records are kept are not fire-proof, and that there is neither safe 
nor vault for the protection of their records. These counties are : Dela- 
ware, Livingston, Schoharie, Schuyler and Steuben. In two other 
counties, Suffolk and Richmond, the county clerk has neither safe nor 
vault, and the buildings are only " partially fire-proof." 

Six county clerks have no safe or vault and their records are in 
buildings " supposed to be fire-proof," but in every case the building is a 
structure erected twenty-five years ago or over. These counties are: 
Eroome, structure built in 1878; Chemung, built in 1875; Cortland, built 
in 1876; Niagara, built in 1856; Orange, built in 1887; and Wyoming, 
built in 1887. 

Of twenty-eight county clerks having fire-proof safes or vaults, eleven 
are reported inadequate for the keeping and storing of all the important 
records. 

The only counties in which the county clerk's office at all measures up 
to the modern requirements for the accommodation and safeguarding of 



public records are: Allegany, Chautauqua, Chenango, Clinton, Columbia, 
Essex, Fulton, Franklin, Genesee, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Mont- 
gomery, Onondaga, Putnam, Rockland, St Lawrence, Sullivan, Wash- 
ington and Yates — a total of twenty out of fifty-nine counties, or about 
one-third. 

The foregoing is not alone our deduction from a study of the 
answers given, but is based on the opinions of the county clerks them- 
selves. 

The county of Schenectady has now in process of erection a county 
building, fire-proof and with ample accommodation and safeguards. 

Albany county is about to erect a new county building, but it will 
not be finished for perhaps seven or eight years. 

Rensselaer county is now making changes with a view to entire 
protection. 

Ulster county has proper safeguards but its safe and vault are 
overcrowded. 

The county clerk's records in Cattaraugus and in Warren counties 
have neither safe nor vault for their special keeping, but, in the opinion 
of the respective county clerks, are secure because of the fire- proof con- 
struction of the buildings. 

With few exceptions, the county clerks report that the records 
in their possession extend back uninterruptedly to the date of the erection 
of their counties, which makes the lack of protection against destruction 
by fire all the more lamentable, and the necessity for prompt reform, 
looking both to accommodation and safeguarding, all the more urgent. 

The only counties that report missing records are : Herkimer, where 
the years from 1798 to 1804 are missing; and Dutchess, where the land 
indices are missing from 1683 to 17 18, and the court filings are very 
incomplete prior to 1850. The county clerk of Ulster county is in 
doubt as to whether his office has all the records. 

Clerks of boards of supervisors 

The clerks of boards of supervisors are, as a rule, much worse off 
in the matter of accommodation for and protection of the records, as 
well as to condition of the records, than the county clerks. 

Thirteen have no safes at all and are in buildings not fire-proof. 
The counties in which these conditions exist are as follows: Cayuga, 
Chenango, Delaware, Erie, Hamilton, Lewis, Livingston, Otsego, Rock- 
land, Schuyler, Tompkins, Ulster and Washington. 

In Allegany county the supervisors' records are missing from 1824 
to 1829 and for 1843. 

The court house in Broome was burned in 1897 and most of the 
supervisors' records were destroyed. The clerk can not tell the years at 
present. 

In Erie, Livingston, Seneca, Tompkins and Wyoming counties there 
are missing records, but the clerks can not say how many or what years. 

In Cayuga county the clerk has no knowledge of records prior to 
1858. Clinton county has no records prior to 1856. The Columbia county 
records were destroyed by fire, except those of recent date. Cortland 
county has' lost all records prior to 1866; Dutchess county all prior to 
1862; Essex, prior to 1852; Madison, all prior to i860; Onondaga, all 
prior to 1854; Putnam, all prior to 1846; Ulster, all prior to i860. In 



Monroe county the supervisors' proceedings of 1851 and 1852 are missing. 
In Orange county the clerk writes : " Records previous to ten years ago 
have been thrown in the attic of the county building." In Washington 
county the records of years prior to 1856 are reported as "scattering." In 
Rensselaer county all records prior to 1894 were destroyed by a former clerk. 
In St Lawrence county one volume of the supervisors' reports, containing 
records of years in the forties, is missing. 

Surrogates 

Of the surrogates, fourteen report that they have not safes of proper 
size to hold all important papers, and that the safes would not prove fire- 
resisting in case of the destruction of the building. These counties are: 
Broome, Cortland, Dutchess, Erie, Essex, Orleans, Otsego, Queens, 
Richmond, Schoharie, Seneca, Sullivan, Tompkins and Wayne. 

In Cattaraugus county all completed records are preserved in the 
surrogate's office at the county seat, Little Valley, but all current records 
of pending cases are at the law office of the surrogate in the village of 
Salamanca; there is no safe in this office. 

Franklin county has a brick vault in the court house, which is 
altogether too small and not fire-proof. 

The safe of the Hamilton county surrogate is large enough only for 
the records of the last ten years. His records are in somewhat chaotic 
state but they are to be indexed and filed the coming year. 

As to the condition and the continuity of the records, reports are 
generally satisfactory, which again only impresses the imperative neces- 
sity for efficient protection against destruction or loss. 



CITIES 



City clerks 

From the city clerks the most satisfactory answer is from the city 
of Middletown, where there was erected in 191 1 a city hall of brick and 
stone with tile and concrete floors. As to the city's vaults, which are 
sufficient for the storage and protection of all the city records, the city 
clerk writes : " We are informed by the architect that should the building 
be burned the vaults would stand alone like a chimney." 

This is the method of security in construction ordered in Massa- 
chusetts cities and larger towns, and assures indestructibility from fires 
of all records so far as human assurance can be given. 

As a whole, the reports of the city clerks as to the preservation and the 
continuity of their records are satisfactory. There are a few exceptions. 

In Albany, the city clerk's records from 1746 to 1773 (Book no. 8) 
are missing. In Hudson, records from September 1840 to May 30, 
1848, and from April 185 1 to August 1863, are missing. In Elmira, one 
volume of original common council proceedings has been lost or destroyed. 
In Binghamton, the city clerk says that there are " some records prior 
to 1897 which were destroyed by fire in that year." In Buffalo, the 
births and marriages prior to 1878 are missing. In Fulton, the records 
are preserved but not filed or arranged, nor are the former clerk's 



records written up. In Lockport, " some records of vital statistics were 
destroyed by fire in 1881." Watertown reports that "Most all records 
are complete since the board of education was organized." 

In twelve of the cities the safes or vaults are inadequate for the 
accommodation and protection of all the city clerk's records. The names 
of these cities follow : Gloversville, Hornell, Ithaca, Newburgh, Niagara 
Falls, Ogdensburg, Oneida, Oswego, Rensselaer, Syracuse, Utica and 
Watervliet. Of these twelve cities, not one of the city clerks' offices 
is in a fire-proof building, except in the city of Syracuse. 



TOWNS 



Town clerks 



Of the 933 town clerks, 364 (or more than one-third) are absolutely 
without any protection from, fire — no safe, no fire-proof building, no 
metal shelving, nothing. Forty-three have safes that are not fire-proof, 
and fifteen have the records in their private safes. 

As to the condition and continuity of the records, not in one quarter 
of the towns do satisfactory conditions exist. It is no exaggeration to 
say that the general attitude in towns toward the keeping and preservation 
of public records has been one of careless indifference. The cor- 
respondence by this office necessary to the securing of statements from 
the town clerks was a work of many discouragements before its final 
completion. 

It is pleasant to be able to record, however, that the work of this 
division received hearty welcome in sporadic cases, and that before the 
investigation resulted in answers from all towns the effect of the cor- 
respondence was to stimulate pretty generally knowledge of the value 
of public records and interest regarding their care. Many letters from 
town clerks and other town officials are on file in this office, illustrating 
this salutary change and development. 



VILLAGES 



Village clerks 

A matter of interest in connection with the village inquiries was 
the discovery that villages, once incorporated and still appearing as 
incorporated villages in the Legislative Manual, had some time since 
failed to elect officers or to act within their rights and responsibilities 
under incorporation, the political control of the territory and property 
of the village reverting to the town of which the village area is a part. 

Instances of this lapsing are the villages of Bridgewater and New 
London in Oneida county, and Oramel in Allegany county. 

The village of Great Neck Estates, mentioned on the first page of 
this report, has not held an election or chosen any village officers since 
its incorporation in the spring of 191 1. This, with the village of Bridge- 

6 



water, mentioned in a foregoing paragraph as having forfeited its in- 
corporation, reduces the number of villages not heard from by two, 
leaving only six political divisions of the entire State now without record 
on file in this office. 

Of the 464 village clerks, 191 are without safes or other protection 
of any kind for their records. Forty-nine have safes, inadequate either 
in size or in quality. Nine use bank vaults for their records, and 11 
keep their records in their private office or home safes. 

To describe the condition and care of village records, generally, 
would be to repeat the summing up of the conditions in the towns. The 
awakened interest as to village records and progress already made, as 
well as promises for the future, are evidenced in the correspondence of 
this division. Twelve village clerks have promised, without urging, to 
have a new safe or vault for their records in the near future. 



IN CLOSING 

The theory upon which this division has prosecuted its work was 
that results under the law could be obtained best and most quickly by 
acquainting, through correspondence, the entire State with the provisions 
of the law of 191 1 and the value of public records, at the same time 
inducing answers from responsible officials themselves as to present 
conditions in their various political divisions, these answers being made 
a permanent record of this division and an enduring and constant basis 
of information as to conditions now existing, or rather the officials' repre- 
sentations as to these conditions, throughout the entire State. 

The ultimate object and result of the examination ordered under 
the present law must be to correct conditions as they affect the present 
and the past, and to safeguard future records through a strong and 
comprehensive enactment that will place New York State in the fore- 
front of the movement for the conservation of public records. 

The problem is much more complex in New York than in almost any 
other state of the Union, not so much because of its great area and cos- 
mopolitan population, as because of the density of its population in some 
parts and the sparsity of its population in others, and the method under 
which its political divisions are created. 

For instance, in Massachusetts a town is a political entity, undivided 
in its autonomy and responsibility. In New York, a town may contain 
many villages, each village having exclusive jurisdiction over practically 
all local functions of government within its boundaries, leaving to the 
town jurisdiction in such matters only over that part of the town's area 
not confined in any one of its incorporated villages. 

At least two villages in this State, Saratoga Springs and White 
Plains, have a population and wealth greater than many of the cities in 
the State; and conversely, there are a number of villages of 250 and 
fewer inhabitants. 

A corrective law must comprehend these characteristic and peculiar 
conditions through its strength on the one hand and its elasticity on the 
other. It should prescribe not alone for the standardization of safes 
and vaults, graded as to locality and uses, but for the standardization in 
a state-wide way of paper, ink, binding and care in the making and 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 211 106 6 

keeping of public records. Penalties for neglect should be provided in 
the case of offending individuals as well as delinquent official bodies. 

A study of all the laws affecting public records, local and general, 
now on New York's statute books, of which there are hundreds, must 
precede the drafting of a worthy and efficacious enactment. This work 
should proceed concurrently with personal visits to the various political 
divisions of the State for the verifying of the reports now on record; 
for the extension of the division's information as to the minor record- 
making and record-keeping offices; and for promoting general publicity 
regarding public records. 

When this work shall have been done, legislation should be possible 
in the Legislature of 19 13 that will effectively cover New York's char- 
acteristic conditions and needs, with the corrective and compulsory 
features as certain and as agreeable of acceptance in the smallest village 
as in the largest city or town within the jurisdiction of this Division of 
Public Records. 

Respectfully submitted 

Thomas C. Quinn 
Chief, Public Records Division 

Albany, N. Y., April 5, 19 12 






Wwm 



rani 
— 

nil 



